
Gass_j=^j7t4^ 



/- 



Book tL 



+ 



•T 

/ 



\jy 



BIBLE VIEW 



OF SLAVBK^Y". 



Philadelphia, April 15, 1863. 
Right Reverend Sir: Your views 
on the Scriptural aspect of Slavery, 
contained in a letter addressed by you 
to some gentlemen in New-York, short- 
ly before the breaking out of the war, 
has come to our notice, and been pe- 
rused with much satisfaction and profit. 
We believe that false teachings on 
this subject have had a great deal to 
do with bringing on the unhappy strife 
between two sections of our common 
country, and that a lamentable degree 
of ignorance prevails in regard to it. 
It is of the deepest importance to the 
public welfare that a sound public 
opinion should exist on this topic. Be- 
lieving that the communication of your 
views as a Christian Bishop on the 
Scriptural aspect of Slavery may con- 
tribute to this desirable result, we re- 
spectfully venture to beg that you will 
favor us with them, and permit us to 
make them public. 

We are with great respct your obedi- 
ent servants, 

G. M. Wharton, 

A. Browning, 

John Stockton Littell, 

Samuel Jackson, M.D., 

ChAS, J. BiDDLE, 

P. McCall. 
To the Rt. Rev. John Henet Hop- 
kins, Burlington, Vt. 



Burlington, Vt., May 2, 1863. 
My Dear Sirs : The pamphlet pub- 
lished in January, 1861, to which you 
have so kindly referred, is at your serv- 
ice, in its original form — as I have not 
found in the numerous answers which 
it has drawn forth, any reason for 
changing my opinion. On the contra- 
ry, those answers have only strength- 
ened my conviction as to the sanction 
which the Scriptures give to the prin- 
ciple of negro slavery, so long as it is 
administered in accordance with the 
precepts laid down by the Apostles. 
Such was the universal doctrine of 
Christian ministers. Christian lawyers, 
and Christian statesmen one hundred 
years ago, with a few exceptions which 
only proved the rule. The Constitu- 
tion of the United States, as I firmly 
believe, made no concessions on the 
subject which were not warranted by 
the Bible. And therefore, while I 



should rejoice in the adoption of any 
plan of gradual abolition which could 
be accepted peacefully by general con- 
sent, I can not see that we have any 
right to interfere with the domestic in- 
stitutions of the South, either by the 
law or by the Gospel. With this brief, 
introduction, I proceed to the veiy 
serious question which your friendly 
application has submitted for discus- 
sion. 

Your faithful servant in Christ, 

John H. Hopkins, 
Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. 

The word "slave" occurs but twice 
in our English Bible, but the term 
"servant," commonly employed by 
our translators, has the meaning of 
slave in the Hebrew and th^e Greek 
originals, as a general rule, where it 
stands alone. We read, however, in 
many places, of " hired servants," and < 
of "bondmen and bondmaids." The 
first were not slaves, but the others 
were ; the distinction being precisely 
the same which exists in our own day. 
Slavery, therefore, may be defined as 
servitude for life, descending to tin 
offspring. And this kind of bondage 
appears to have existed as an esta- 
blished institution in all the ages of 
our world, by the universal evidence 
of history, whether sacred or profane. 

This understood, I shall not oppose 
the prevalent idea that slavery is an 
evil in itself. A physical evil it may 
be, but this does not satisfy the judg- 
ment of its more zealous adversaries, 
since they contend that it is a moral 
evil — a positive sin to hold a human 
being in bondage, under any circum- 
stances whatever, unless as a punish- 
ment inflicted on crimes, for the safety 
of the communit3% 

Here, therefore, lies the true aspect 
of the controversy. And it is evident 
that it can only be settled by the Bible. 
For every Christian is bound to assent 
to the rule of the inspired Apostle, 
that "sin is the transgression of the 
law," namely, the law laid down in the 
Scriptures by the authority of God— 
the supreme "Lawgiver, who is able 
to save and to destroy." From his 
Word there can be no appeal. _ No re- 
bellion can be so atrocious in his sight 
as that which dares to rise against his 



^l' if 



■H7^^ \ 



gorernment. No blasphemy can be 
more unpardonable than that which 
imputes sin or moral evil to the de- 
crees of the eternal Judge, who is alone 
perfect in wisdom, in knowledge, and 
in love. 

With entire correctness, therefore, 
your letter refers the question to the 
only infallible criterion — the Word of 
God. If it were a matter to be deter- 
mined by my personal sympathies, 
tastes, or feelings, I should be as ready 
as any man to condemif the institu- 
tion of .slavery, for all my prejudices 
of education, habit, and social position 
stand entirely opposed to it. But as a 
Christian, T am solemnly M'arned not to 
be " wise in my own conceit," and not 
to " lean to my own understanding." 
As a Christian, I am compelled to sub- 
mit my weak and erring intellect to 
the authority of the Almighty. For 
then only can I be safe in my conclu- 
sions, when I know that they are in 
accordance with the will of Him, be- 
fore whfse tribunal I must render a 
strict account in the last great day. 

I proceed, accordingly, to the evi- 
• dence of the sacred Scriptures, which, 
long ago, produced complete conviction 
in my own mind, and must, as I regard 
it, be equally conclusive to every can- 
did and sincere inquirer. W^hen the 
array of positive proof is exhibited, I 
shall consider the objections, and ex- 
amine their validity with all the fair- 
ness in my power. 

The first appearance of slavery in 
the Bible is the wonderful prediction 
of the patriarch Noah : " Cursed be 
Canaan, a sertant of servants shall he 
be to his brethren. Blessed be the 
Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall 
le his servant. God shall enlarge Ja- 
phet, and he shall dwell in the tents 
of Shem, and Canaan shall he his ser- 
vant. (Gen. 9 : 25.) 

The heartless irreverence which 
Ham, the father of Canaan, displayed 
toward his eminent parent, whose 
piety had just saved him from the 
deluge, presented the immediate occa- 
sion for this remarkable prophecy ; but 
the actual frdjillment was reserved 
for his posterity, after they had lost 
the knowledge of God, and become ut- 
terly polluted by the abominations of 
heathen idolatry. The Almighty, fore- 
seeing this total degradation of the race, 
ordained them to servitude or slavery 
under the descendants of Shem and 
Japhet, doubtless because he judged 
it to he their fittest condition. And 
all history proves how accurately the 



prediction has been accomplished, eTei\ 
to the present day. t 

We come next to the proof that\ 
slavery was sanctioned by the Deity in \ 
the case of Abraham, whose three hun- \ 
dred and eighteen bond servants, bom 
in his own house, (Gen. 14 : 14,) are 
mentioned along with those who were 
hought icith his money, as proper sub- 
jects for circumcision. (Gen. lY : 1''/.) 
His wife Sarah had also an Egyp. .ii 
slave, named Hagar, who fied from her 
severity. And " the angel of the Lord" 
commanded the fugitive to return to 
her mistress and svhmit herself. (Gen, 
16 : 9.) If the philanthropists of our 
age, who profess to believe the Bible, 
had been willing to take the counsel 
of that angel for their guide, it would 
have preserved the peace and welfare 
of the Union. ( 

The third proof that slavery was au- ' 
thorized by the Almighty occurs in the 
last of the Ten Commandments, de- 
livered from Mount Sinai, and univer- 
sally acknowledged by Jews and Chris- 
tians as THE MORAL LAW I " Thou shalt 
not covet thy neighbor's house, thou 
shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, 
nor his man-servant, nor his maid- 
servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any 
thing that is thy neighbor's." (Exod. 
20 : 17.) Here it is evident that the 
principle of property — "any thing that 
is thy neighbor's " — runs through the 
whole. I am quite aware, indeed, of 
the prejudice which many good people 
entertain against the idea of property 
in a human being, and shall consider 
it, in due time, amongst the objections. 
I am equally aware that the wives of 
our day may take umbrage at the law 
which places them in the same sentence 
with the slave, and even with the house 
and the cattle. But the truth is none 
the less certain. The husband has a 
real property in the wife, becaiisc she 
is bound, for life, to serve and to obey 
him. The wife has a real property in 
her husband, because he is bound for 
life to cherish and maintain Irt The 
character of property is doubtless 
modified by its design. But whatever, 
whether person or thing, the law ap- 
propriates to an individual, becomes 
of necessity his property. 

The fourth proof, however, is yet 
more express, as it is derived from the 
direct rule established by the wisdom 
of God for his chosen people, Israel, on 
the very point in question, namely : 

" If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six 
years shall he serve, and in the seventh 
year he shall go out free for nothing. 



If he came in by himself, he shall go 
out by himself. If he were married, 
then his wife shall go out with him. 
If his master have given him a wife, 
and she have borne him sons or 
daughters, the wife and the children 
shall he her master's, and he shall go 
out by himsel/r (Exod. 21 : 2^.) 
Here we see that the separation of 
husband and wife is positively di- 
rected by the divine command, in order 
to secure the property of the master in 
his bond-maid and her offspring. But 
the husband had an alternative, if he 
preferred slavery to separation. For 
thus the law of God proceeds : " If 
the servant shall plainly saj^, I love 
my master, my wife, and my children; 
I will not go out free ; then his master 
shall bring him unto the judges ; he 
shall also bring him to the door or 
unto the door-post ; and his master 
shall bore his ear through with an awl, 
and he shall serve him forever^ (Exod. 
21 : 5, 6.) With this law before his 
eyes, what Christian can believe that 
the Almighty attached immorality or 
sin to the condition of slavery ? 

The treatment of slaves, especially 
as it regarded the degree of correction 
which the master might administer, 
occurs in the same chapter, as follows : 
" If a man smite his servant or his 
maid with a rod, and he die under his 
hand, he shall be surely punished. 
Notwithstanding if he continue a day 
or two, he shall not he punished ; for 
he is his money?'' (Exod. 21 : 20, 21.) 
And again. If a man smite the eye of 
his servant or the eye of his maid, that 
it perish, he shall let him go free for 
his eye's sake. And if he smite out 
Kis man-servant's tooth, or his maid- 
servant's tooth, he shall let him go 
free for his tooth's sake." (Exod. 21 : 
26, 27.) Here we see that the master 
was authorized to use corporal correc- 
tion toward his slaves, within certain 
limits. When immediate death ensued, 
he was to be punished as the judges 
might determine. But for all that came 
short of this, the loss of his property 
was held to be a sufficient penalty. 

The next evidence furnished by the 
divine law appears in the peculiar and 
admirable appointment of the Jubilee. 
" Ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and 
proclaim liberty throughout all the 
land to all the inhabitants thereof: it 
shall be a Jubilee unto you, and ye shall 
return every man unto his possession, 
and ye shall return every inan to his 
family:' (Lev. 25 : 10.) This enact- 
ment, however, did not affect the slaves, 



because it only extended to the Israel- 
ites who had " a possession and a 
family," according to the original dis- 
tribution of the land among the tribes. 
The distinction is plainly set forth in 
the same chapter, namely : 

"If thy brother that dwelleth by 
thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto 
thee, thou shalt not compel him to 
serve as a bond servant, but as a 
hired servant and as a sojourner he 
shall be with thee, and shall serve thee 
unto the year of Jubilee, and then 
shall he depart from thee, both he and 
his children with him, and shall return 
unto his own family, and unto the pos- 
session of his fathers shall he return. 
For they are my servants which I 
brought forth out of the land of 
Egypt, they shall not be sold as bond- 
men. Both thy hondmen and hond- 
maids, 'w7iich thou shalt have, shall be 
of the heathen that are round about 
you; of them shall ye buy bondmen 
and bondmaids. Moreover, of the chil- 
dren of the strangers that do sojourn 
among yozi, of them shall ye buy, and, 
of their families that are with you, 
ichich they begat in your land, and 
they shall be your possession. And 
ye shall take them as an inheritance 
for your children after you, to inherit 
them for a possession ; they shall be 

VOUR BONDMEN FOR EVER ; but OVCr 

3'our brethren, the children of Israel, 
3'e shall not rule one over another with 
rigor. For unto me the children of 
Israel are servants ; they are my 
servants whom I brought forth out of 
the land of Egypt : I am the Lord your 
God." (Lev. 25 : 40-46, with v. 55.) 
The distinction here made between 
the temporary servitude of the Israel- 
ite and the perpetual bondage of the 
heathen race, is too plain for contro- 
versy. And this express and positive 
law furnishes the true meaning of an- 
other passage which the ultra aboli- 
tionist is very fond of repeating: 
" Thou shalt not deliver unto his mas- 
ter the servant which is escaped from 
his master unto thee : he shall dwell 
with thee, even among you, in that 
place which he shall choose, in one of 
thy gates where it liketh him best : 
thou shalt not oppress him." (DeuL 
23': 15, 16.) This evidently must be 
referred to the case of a slave who had 
escaped from 9. foreign heathen master, 
and can not, with any sound reason, 
be applied to the slaves of the Israel- 
ites themselves. For it is manifest 
that if it were so applied, it would 
nullify the other enactments of the 



divine Lawgiver, and it would have 
been an absurdity to tell the people 
that they should " buy bondmen and 
bondmaids of the heathen and the 
stranger, to be their possession and the 
inheritance of their children for ever," 
while, nevertheless, the slaves should 
be at liberty to run away and become 
freemen when they pleased. It is 
the well-known maxim, in the inter- 
pretation of all laws, that each sentence 
shall be so construed as to give a con- 
sistent meaning to the whole. And 
assuredly, if we are bound to follow 
this rule in the legislation of earth, we 
can not be less bound to follow it in 
the legislation of the Almighty. The 
meaning that I have adopted is the only 
one which agrees with the established 
principle of legal construction, and it 
has invariably been sanctioned by the 
doctors of the Jewish law, and every 
respectable Christian commentator. 

Such, then, is the institution of 
slavery, laid down by the Lord God of 
Lsrael for his chosen people, and con- 
tinued for fifteen centuries, until the 
new dispensation of the Gospel. What 
change did this produce ? I grant, of 
course, that we, as Christians, are 
bound by the precepts and example of 
the Saviour and his apostles. Let us 
now, therefore, proceed to the all-im- 
portant inquiry, whether we are au- 
thorized by these to presume that the 
Mosaic system was done away. 

First, then, we ask what the divine 
Redeemer said in reference to slavery. 
And the answer is perfectly undeni- 
able: He did not allude to it at 
ALL. Not one word upon the subject 
is recorded by any of the four Evan- 
gelists who gave His life and doctrines 
to the world. Yet slavery was in full 
existence at the time, throughout 
Judea ; and the Roman empire, ac- 
cording to the historian Gibbon, con- 
tained sixty millions of slaves, on the 
lowest probable computation ! How 
prosperous and united would our glori- 
ous republic be at this hour, if the elo- 
quent and pertinacious declaimers 
against slavery had been willing to 
follow their Saviour's example ! 

But did not our Lord substantially 
repeal the old law, by the mere fact 
that he established a new dispensa- 
tion ? Certainly not, unless they were 
incompatible. And that he did not 
consider them incompatible is clearly 
proved by his own express declara- 
tion. "Think not," saith he, "that I 
am come to destroy the law or the 
prophets. I am not come to destroy, 



but to fulfill." (JLitt. 5:17.) On that 
point, therefore, this single passage is 
perfectly conclusive. 

It is said by some, however, that 
the great principle of the Gospel, love 
to God and love to man, necessarily 
involved the condemnation of slavery. 
Yet how should it have any such re- 
sult, when we remember that this was 
no new principle, but, on the contrary, 
was laid down by the Deity to his own 
chosen people, and was quoted from 
the Old Testament by the Saviour 
himself? And why should slavery be 
thought inconsistent with it ? In the 
relation of master and slave, we are 
assured by our Southern brethren that 
there is incomparably more mutual 
love than can ever be found between 
the employer and the hireling. And I 
can readily believe it, for the very 
reason that it is a relation for life, and 
the parties, when rightly disposed, 
must therefore feci a far stronger and 
deeper interest in each other. 

The next evidence which proves 
that the Mosaic law was not held to 
be inconsistent with the Gospel occurs 
in the statement of the apostles to St. 
Paul, made some twenty years, at least, 
after the establishment of the first 
Christian church in Jerusalem. " Thou 
seest, brother," said they, " how many 
thousands of Jews there are who be- 
lieve, and they are all zealous of the 
law." (Acts 21 : 20.) How could 
this have been possible, if the law was 
supposed to be abolished by the new 
dispensation ? 

But the precepts and the conduct 
of St. Paul himself, the great apostle 
of the Gentiles, are all sufficient, 
because he meets the very point, and 
settles the whole question. Thus he 
saith to the'Ephesians : " Servants, (in 
the original Greek, bond servants or 
slaves) " be obedient to them that are 
your masters, according to the flesh, 
with fear and trembling, in singleness 
of your hearts, as unto Christ. Not 
with eye service, as men-pleasers, but 
as the servants of Christ, doing the 
will of God from the heart, with good 
will doing service, as to the Lord, and 
not unto men, knowing that what- 
soever good thing any man doeth, the 
same shall he receive of the Lord, 
whether he be bond or free. And ye 
masters, do the same things unto 
them, forbearing threatening, knowing 
that your Master also is in heaven, 
neither is there any respect of per- 
sons with him." (Eph. 6 : 5-9.) 
Again, to the Colossians, St. Paul 



repeats the same commandments. 
"Servants," (that is, lond servants or 
slaves) " obey in all things your mas- 
ters according to the flesh, not with 
eye service, as men-pleasers, but in sin- 
gleness of heart, fearing God." (Col. 
3 : 22.) " Masters, give unto your ser- 
vants that vrhich is just and equal, 
knowing that ye also have a Master in 
heaven." (Col. 4 : l.)_ 

Again, the same inspired teacher lays 
down the law in very strong terms, to 
Timothy, the first Bishop of Ephesus : 
" Let as many servants as are under 
the yoke," (that is, the yoke of bond- 
age,) "count their own masters worthy 
of all honor, that the name of God and 
his doctrine be not blasphemed. And 
they that have believing masters, let 
them not despise them because they 
are brethren, but rather do them ser- 
vice because they are fiithful and be- 
loved, partakers of the benefit. These 
things teach and exhort. If any man 
teach otherwise, and consent not to 
wholesome tcords, even the words of 
our Lord Jesus Chrkt, and to the doc- 
trine which is according to godliness, 
he is proud, knowing nothing^ hut 
doting about questions and strifes of 
words, whereof comelh envy, strife, 
railings, evil surmisings, jterverse dis- 
ptitings of men of corrujjt minds and 
destitute of the truth, supposing that 
griin is godliness. From such with- 
draw thj'^self But godliness with con- 
tentment is great gain. For we brought 
nothing into this world, and it is cer- 
tain we can carry nothing out. And 
having food and raiment, let us be 
therewith content." (1 Tim. 6 : 1-8.) 

Lastl}', St. Paul, in his Epistle to 
Philemon, informs him that he had sent 
back his fugitive slave, whom the apos- 
tle had converted to the Christian faith 
during his imprisonment, asking the 
master to forgive and receive his peni- 
tent disciple. " I beseech thee for my 
son Onesimus," saith he, "whom I 
have begotten in my bonds, which in 
time past was to thee unprofitable, but 
now profitable to thee and to me, whom 
I have sent again : thou therefore re- 
ceive him that is mine own bowels, 
whom I would have retained with me, 
that in thy stead he might have min- 
istered unto me in the bonds of the 
gospel. But without thj-- mind would 
I do nothing, that thy benefit should 
not be as it were of necessity, but 
willingly. For perhaps he therefore 
departed for a season, that thou 
shouldst receive him forever, not now 
as a servant, but above a servant, a 



brother beloved, specially to me, but 
how much more to thee, both in the 
flesh and in the Lord. If thou count- 
est me therefore a partner, receive him 
as myself. If he hath wronged thee 
or oweth thee aught, put that on mine 
account. I Paul have written it with 
mine own hand. I will repay it ; al- 
beit I do not say to thee how thou 
owest unto me thine own soul besides." 
(Ep. to Philemon 5 : 10, 19.) 

The evidence of the New Testament 
is thus complete, plainly proving that 
the institution of slavery was not abol- 
ished by the Gospel. Compare now 
the course of the ultra abolitionist with 
that of Christ and his inspired apostle. 
The divine Redeemer openly rebukes 
the sanctimonious Pharisees, " who 
made void the law of God by their tra- 
ditions." He spares not the wealthy, 
infidel Sadducees. He denounces the 
hypocritical Scribes, who " loved the 
uppermost rooms at feasts and to be 
called of men. Rabbi, Rabbi." He 
calls the royal Herod "that fox," en- 
tirely regardless of the king's displea- 
sure. He censures severely the Jewish 
practice of divorcing their wives for 
the slightest cause, and vindicates the 
original sanctity of marriage. He tells 
the deluded crowd of his enemies that 
they are " the children of the devil, and 
that the lusts of their fathers they 
would do." He makes a scourge of 
small cords, and drives the buyers and 
sellers out of the temple. And while 
he thus rebukes the sins of all around 
him, and speaks with divine authority, 
he proclaims himself the special friend 
and patron of the poor — preaches to 
them his blessed doctrine, on the 
mountain, by the seaside, or in the 
public streets, under the open canopy 
of heaven — heals their diseases, par- 
takes of their humble fare, and, pass- 
ing by the rich and the great, chooses 
his apostles from the ranks of the pub- 
licans and the fishermen of Galilee. 
Yet he lived in the midst of slavery, 
maintained over the old heathen races, 
in accordance with the Mosaic law, and 
uttered not one word against it ! What 
proof can be stronger than this, that he 
did not regard it as a sin or a moral 
fevil ? And what contrast can be more 
manifest than this example of Christ 
on the one hand, and the loud and 
bitter denunciations of our anti-slavery 
preachers and politicians, calling them- 
selves Christians, on the other ? For 
they not only set themselves against 
the Word of God in this matter, con- 
demning slavery as the "monster 



6 



sin," the "sum of all villainies," but — 
strange to say — they do it in the very 
name of that Saviour whose whole line 
of conduct was the very opposite of 
their own ! 

Look next at the contrast afforded 
by the inspired Apostle of the Gentiles. 
He preaches to the slave, and tells him 
to be obedient to his master for Christ's 
sake, faithful and submissive, as a main 
branch of religious duty. He preaches 
to the master and tells him to be just 
»nd equal to his slave, knowing that his 
Master is in heaven. He finds a fugi- 
tive slave, and converts him to the 
Gospel, and then sends him back again 
to his old home, with a letter of kind 
recommendation. Why does St. Paul 
act thus ? Why does he not counsel 
the fugitive to claim his right to free- 
dom, and defend that right, if neces- 
sary, by the strong hand of violence, 
even unto death ? Why does he not 
write to his disciple, Philemon, and re- 
buke him for the awful sin of holding 
a fellow-man in bondage, and charge it 
upon him, as a solemn duty, to emanci- 
pate his slaves, at the peril of his soul. 

The answer is very plain. S^'. Paul 
teas inspired, raid knew the will of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, and teas only in- 
tent on vieying it. And who are we, 
that in our modern wisdom presume to 
set aside the Word of God, and scorn 
the example of the divine Redeemer, 
and spurn the preaching and the con- 
duct of the apostles, and invent for our- 
selves a "higher law" than those holy 
Scriptures which are given to us as " a 
light to our feet and a lamp to our 
paths," in the darkness of a sinful and 
polluted world ? WIio are we, that vir- 
tually blot out the language of the sa- 
cred record, and dictate to the Majesty 
of heaven what he shall regard as sin, 
and reward a.i duty ? Whoare we, that 
are ready to trample on the doctrine of 
the Bible, and tear to shreds the Con- 
stitution of our country, and even 
plunge the land into the untold horrors 
of civil war, and yet boldly pray to the 
God of Israel to bless our very acts of 
rebellion against his own sovereign au- 
thority ? Woe to our Union when the 
blind become the leaders of the blind ! 
Woo to the man who dares to " strive 
against his Maker !" 

Yet I do not mean to charge the nu- 
merous and respecfcible fi-iends of this 
popular delusion with a willful or con- 
scious opposition to the truth. They 
are seduced, doubtless, in the great 
majority of cases, by the feelings of a 
£ilse philanthropy, which palliates, if it 



can not excuse, their dangerous error. 
Living far away from the Southern 
States, with no practical experience of 
the institution, and accustomed, from 
their childhood, to attach an inordinate 
value to their personal liberty, they are 
naturally disposed to compassionate 
the negro race, and to believe that the 
slave must be supremely wretched in 
his bondage. They are under no special 
inducement to " search the Scriptures " 
on this particular subject, nor are they 
in general, I am sorry to say, accus- 
tomed to study the Bible half as much 
as they read the newspapers, the novel 
and the magazine. There they find 
many revolting pictures of slavery, and 
they do not pause to ask the question 
whether they are just and faithful. 
Perhaps a fugitive comes along, who 
has fled from his master, and who, in 
justification of himself, will usually 
give a very distorted statement of the 
fticts, even if he does not invent them 
altogether. And these good and kind- 
hearted people believe it all implicitly, 
Avithout ever remembering the rule 
about hearing ioth sides before we form 
our opinion. Of course, they sympa- 
thize warmly with the poor, oppressed 
African, and are generously excited to 
hate the system of slavery with all their 
heart. Then the eloquent preacher 
chooses it for the favorite topic of his 
oratory. The theme is well adapted 
to rouse the feelings, and it is usually 
by no means difficult to interest and 
gratify the audience, when the sup- 
posed sins of others, which they are 
under no temptation to commit, are 
made the object of censui'e. In due 
time, when the public mind is suflB- 
ciently heated, the politician lays hold 
of the subject, and makes the anti- 
slavery movement the watchword of 
party. And finally the Press follows 
in the wake of the leaders, and the fire 
is industriously Hmned until it becomes 
a perfect blaze ; while the admiring 
throng surround it M'ith exultation, 
and fancy its lurid light to be from 
heaven, until the flames begin to threat- 
en their own security. 

Such has been the perilous course 
of our Northern sentiment on the sub- 
ject of slavery. The great majority, 
in every community, are the creatures 
of habit, of association and of impulse, 
and every allowance should be made 
for those errors which are committed 
in ignorance, under a generous S3'm- 
pathy for what they suppose to be the 
rights of man. I can not, however, 
make the same apology for those who 



are professionally pledged to under- 
stand and inculcate the doctrines of 
the Bible. On that class of our pub- 
lic instructors, the present perilous 
crisis of the nation casts a fearful re- 
sponsibility. Solemnly bound by their 
sacred office to preach the AVord of 
God, and to follow Christ and his apos- 
tles, as the heralds of " peace and good- 
"will to men," they seem to me strange- 
ly regardless, on this important subject, 
of their highest obligations. But it is 
not for me to judge them. To their 
own Master, let them stand or fall. 

I have promised, however, to notice 
the various objections which have been 
raised in the popular mind to the in- 
stitution of Southern slavery, and to 
these I shall now proceed. 

First on this list stand the proposi- 
tions of the far fanied Declaration of 
Independence, " that all men are cre- 
ated equal ; that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable 
rights ; that among these are life, lib- 
erty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
These statements are here called "self- 
evident truths." But with due respect 
to the celebrated names which are ap- 
pended to this document, I have never 
been able to comprehend that they 
are " truths" at all. In what respect 
are men " created equal," when every 
thoughtful person must be sensible 
that the}' are brought into the world 
with all imaginable difference in body, 
in mind, and in every characteristic of 
their social position ? Notwithstand- 
ing mankind have all descended from 
one common parent, yet we see them 
divided into distinct races, so strongly 
marked, that infidel philosophers insist 
. on the impossibility of their having the 
same ancestry. Where is the equality 
in iody between the child born with 
the hereditary taint of scrofula or 
consumption, and the infant filled 
with health and vigor ? Where is the 
equality in onind between one who is 
endowed with talent and genius, and 
another whose intellect borders on 
idiocy ? Where is the equality in 
social position between the son of the 
Esquimaux or Hottentot, and the heir 
of the American statesman or British 
peer ? 

Neither am I able to admit that all 
men are endowed with the unalienable 
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness, because it is manifest that 
since "sin entered into the world and 
death by sin," they are all alienated, 
forfeited and lost, through the con- 
sequences of transgressioa Life is 



alienated not only by the sentence of 
the law, but by innumerable forms 
of violence and accident. Liberty is 
alienated not only by imprisonment, 
but by the irresistible restraints of 
social bondage to the will, the temper, 
the prejudices, the customs, or the 
interests of others ; so that there is 
hardly an individual to be found, even 
in the most favored community, who 
has really the liberty of word and 
action so confidently asserted as the 
unalienable right of all men. And as 
regards the " pursuit of happiness," 
alas ! what multitudes alienate their 
right to it, beyond recovery, not only 
in the cells of the penitentiary, but in 
the reckless indulgence of their appe- 
tites and passions, in the disgust aris- 
ing from ill-chosen conjugal relations, 
in their associations with the profligate 
and the vile, in the pain and suffering 
of sickness and poverty as the results 
of vice, in the ruin of the gambler, 
the delirium of the drunkard, the de- 
spair of the suicide, and in every other 
form of moral contamination ! 

If it be said, however, that the equali- 
ty and unalienable rights of all men, 
so strongly asserted by this famous 
Declaration, are only to be taken in a 
political sense, I am willing to concede 
that this may be the proper interpre- 
tation of its intended meaning, but I 
can not see how it removes the diffi- 
culty. The statement is that " all men 
are created equal^'' and that "the 
Ckeatok has endowed them with these 
unaliinalle rights." Certainly if the 
authors of this celebrated document 
designed to speak only of political 
rights and political equality, they 
should not have thus referred them 
to the act of creation, because it is 
perfectly obvious that, since the be- 
ginning of human government, men 
have been created with all imaginable 
inequality, under slavery, under despot- 
ism, under aristocracy, under limited 
monarchy, under every imaginable 
form of political strife and political 
oppression. In no respect whatever, 
that I can discover, has the Almighty 
sent our race into the world with these 
imaginary rights, and this fanciful 
equality. In his sight the whole world 
is sinful, rebellious, and lying under 
the just condemnation of his violated 
laws. Our original rights, whatever 
they might have been, ai-e all forfeited 
and gone. And since the fall, mankind 
have no rights to claim at the hand 
of the Creator. Our whole dependence 
is on bis mercy and compassion. And 



8 



he dispenses these according to his 
sovereign will and pleasure, on no 
system of equality that any human 
eye can discover, and yet, as every 
Christian must believe, on the eternal 
principles of perfect benevolence, in 
union with impartial justice, and 
boundless knowledge, and wisdom 
that can not err. 

Where, then, I ask, did the authors 
of the Declaration of Independence find 
their warrant for such a statement ? 
It was probably judicious enough to 
call their propositions " self evident 
truths," because it seems manifest that 
no man can prove them. To estimate 
aright the vast diversity among the 
races of mankind, we may begin with 
our own, the highly privileged Anglo- 
Saxon, which now stands at the head, 
although our ancestors were heathen 
barbarians only two thousand years 
ago. From this we may go down the 
descending scale through the Turks, 
the Chinese, the Tartars, the Japanese, 
the Egyptians, the Hindoos, the Indian 
tribes, the Laplanders, the Abyssin- 
ians, the Africans, and how is it pos- 
sible to imagine that God has made 
them all equal ! As truly might it be 
said that all the trees of the forest are 
equal — that all the mountains, and 
seas, and rivers are equal — that all the 
beasts of the fields are equal — that all 
the birds of the air are equal. The 
facts rather establish the very contra- 
ry. The Deity seems to take pleasure 
in exhibiting a marvelous wealth of 
power through the rich variety of all 
his works, so that no two individuals 
of any species can be found in all re- 
spects alike. And hence we behold a 
grand system of order and gradatiox, 
from the thrones, dominions, princi- 
palities and powers in heavenly places, 
rank below rank, to man. And then 
we see the same system throughout 
our earth displayed in the variety of 
races, some higher, some lower in the 
scale — in the variety of governments, 
from pure despotism to pure democ- 
racy — in the variety of privilege and 
power among the subjects of each gov- 
ernment, some being born to command- 
ing authority and influence, while 
others are destined to submit and 
obey. Again, we behold the system 
continued in the animal creation, from 
the lordly lion down to the timid mole, 
from the eagle to the humming bird, 
from the monsters of the deep to the 
sea star in its shell. The same plan 
meets us in the insect tribes. Some 
swift and poweiful, others slow and 



weak, some marshaled into a regular 
government — monarchy in the bee- 
hive, aristocracy in the ant-hill, while 
others, like the flies, have no govern- 
ment at all. And in perfect harmony 
with this divine arrangement, the in- 
animate creation presents us with the 
same vast variety. The canopy of 
heaven is studded with orbs of light, 
all differing in magnitude, all differ- 
ing in radiance, and all yielding to the 
sovereign splendor of the sun. The 
earth is clothed with the most profuse 
diversity of vegetation, from the lofty 
palm down to the humble moss. The 
mineral kingdom shines with gold, sil- 
ver, iron, copper, and precious stones, 
in all conceivable forms and colors. 
From the mammoth cave down to the 
minutest crystal — from mountains of 
granite down to the sand upon the 
shore, all is varied, multiform, unequal, 
yet each element has its specific use 
and beauty, and the grand aggregate 
vmites in the sublime hymn of praise 
to the wisdom, the goodness, and the 
stupendous resources of that ineffable 
Power which produced the whole. 

This brief and most inadequate 
sketch of the order of creation may 
serve at least to show that the manifest 
inequality in the condition of mankind 
is no exception to the rule, but is sus- 
tained by all analogy. It is the will 
of God that it should be so, and no 
human sagacity or effort can prevent 
it. And the same principle exists in 
our political relations. AVe may talk 
as we please of our equality in political 
rights and privileges, but in point of 
fact, there is no such thing. Amongst 
the other civilized nations it is not 
even pretended. None of the great 
galaxy of European governments can 
have a better title to it than England, 
yet who would be so absurd as to 
claim political equality in a land of 
monarchy, of hereditary nobles, of 
time-honored aristocracy ? The best 
approach to political equality is con- 
fessedly here, and here only. Yet 
even here, amidst the gloiics of our 
universal suffrage, where is it to be 
found ? Political equality, if it means 
any thing, must mean that every man 
enjoys the same right to political 
office and honor; because the polity 
of any government consists in its sys- 
tem of administration, and hence it 
results, of necessity, that those who 
can not possibly be admitted to share 
in this administi^ation, have no poli- 
tical eqvMity with those who can. 
We do, mdeed, say that the people are 



9 



tovereign. But every one knows, full 
well, that the comparative few who 
are qualified to take the lead, by 
talent, bj^ education, by natural tact, 
and by a conjunction of favoring 
circumstances, are practically sover- 
eigns over the people. The man who 
carries a hod gives his vote for the 
candidate. The candidate himself can 
do no more, so far as it concerns the 
mere form of election. Are they 
therefore politically equal ? AVho 
formed the party to which the candi- 
date belongs ? Who ruled the conven- 
tion by which his name was put upon 
the list ? Who arranged the orators 
for the occasion ? A\''ho subsidized the 
Press? Had the poor hodman any 
share in the operation, any influence, 
any voice whatever? No more than 
the hod which he carries. Can any 
human power ever manufacture a 
candidate out of him? The notion 
would be preposterous. Where then 
is his political equality ? Even here, 
in our happy land of universal suffrage, 
how does it appear that "aZZ men we 
horn equal"? The proposition is a 
sheer absurdity. All men are born 
unequal, in body, in mind, and social 
privileges. Their intellectual faculties 
are unequal. Their education is une- 
qual. Their associations are unequal. 
Their opportunities are unequal. And 
their freedom is as unreal as their 
equahty. The poor are compelled to 
serve the rich, and the rich are com- 
pelled to serve the poor by paying 
for their services. The political party 
is compelled to serve the leaders, 
and the leaders are compelled to 
scheme and toil, in order to serve the 
party. The multitude are dependent 
on the few who are endowed with 
talents to govern. And the few are 
dependent on the multitude for the 
power, without which all government 
is impossible. From the top to the 
bottom of the social fabric, the whole 
is thus seen to be inequality and mu- 
tual dependence. And hence, although 
they are free from that special kind 
of slavery which the Southern States 
maintain over the posterity of Ham, 
yet they are all, from the highest to 
the lowest, in bondage quite as real, 
from which they can not escape — the 
slavery of circiimstariccs, called, in 
the ordinary language of the world, 

NECESSITY. 

I have been, I fear, unreasonably 
tedious in thus endeavoring to show 
why I utterly discard these famous 
propositions of the Declaration of 



Independence. It is because I am 
aware of the strong hold which they 
have gained over the ordinary mind 
of the nation. They are assumed by 
thousands upon thousands, as if they 
were the very doctrines of divine 
truth. And they are made the basis 
of the hostile feeling against the slavery 
of the South, notwithstanding their 
total want of rationality. Yet I do 
not wonder that such maxims should 
be popular. They are admirably cal- 
culated to gratify the pride and am- 
bition so natural to the human heart, 
and are therefore ;*owerful incentives 
in the work of political revolution. 
It was for this purpose, I presume, 
that they were introduced in that 
famous document, which publicly cast 
off the allegiance of the colonies to the 
British crown. And the same doc- 
trines were proclaimed a few years 
later, in a similar service, by the 
French Directory, in the midst of a 
far more terrible revolution. Libert?/, 
equality, and fraternity — the kiohts 
OF MAN, were then the watchwords of 
the excited populace, while their insane 
leaders published the decree of Athe- 
ism, and a notorious courtesan was 
enthroned as the goddess of reason, 
and the guillotine daily massacred the 
victims of democratic fury, till the 
streets of Paris ran with blood. 

I do not state this fact because I 
desire to place the revolutions in the 
Colonies and in France on the same 
foundation, with respect to the spirit 
or the mode in which they were con- 
ducted. God forbid that I should for- 
get the marked features of contrast be- 
tween them ! On the one side, there 
was religious reverence, strong piety, 
and pure disinterested patriotism. On 
the other, there was the madness of 
atheism, the brutality of ruffianism, 
and the "reign of terror" to all that 
was good and true. In no one mark 
or character, indeed, could I deem that 
there was any comparison between 
them, save in this : that the same false 
assumption of human equality and hu- 
man rights was adopted in both. Yet 
how widely different was their result 
on the question of negro slavery ! The 
American revolution produced no effect 
whatever on that institution ; while the 
French revolution roused the slaves of 
their colony in St. Domingo to a gene- 
ral insurrection, and a scene of barbar- 
ous and cruel butchery succeeded, to 
which the history of the world contains 
no parallel. 

This brings me to the last remarks 



10 



which I have to present on this famous 
Declaration. And I respectfully ask 
my readers to consider them maturely. 

First, then, it seems manifest, that 
when the signers of this document as- 
sumed that " all men were born equal," 
they did not take the negro race into 
account at all. It is unquestionable 
that the author, Mr. Jefferson, was a 
slaveholder at the time, and continu- 
ed so to his life's end. It is certain 
that the great majority of the other 
signers of the Declaration were slave- 
holders likewise. No one can be igno- 
rant of the fact that slavery had been 
introduced into all the colonies long 
before, and continued to exist long 
after, in every State save one. Surely 
then, it can not be presumed that 
these able and sagacious men intended 
to stultify themselves by declaring that 
the negro race had rights, Mhich nev- 
ertheless they were not ready to give 
them. And yet it is evident, that we 
must either impute this crying injus- 
tice to our revolutionary patriots, or 
suppose that the case of the slaves 
was not contemplated. 

Nor is this a solitary example, for 
we have a complete parallel to it in the 
preamble to the Constitution, where 
the important phrase, '• We, the peo- 
ple of the United States,' must be un- 
derstood with the very same limitation. 
Who were the people ? Undoubted- 
ly the free citizens who voted for the 
Constitution. AVere the slaves count- 
ed as a part of that people? B}- no 
means. The negro race had no voice, 
no vote, no influence whatever in the 
matter. Thus, therefore, it seems per- 
fectly plain that both these instru- 
ments must be understood according 
to the same rub of interpretation. 
The slaves were not included in the 
Declaration of Independence, for the 
same reason precisely that they were 
not included amongst the "people" 
who adopted the Constitution of the , 
United States. i 

Now it is the estaVjlished maxim of 
the law, that every written document 
must be understood according to the 
true intent of the parlies when it was 
executed. The language employed 
may be such that it admits of a differ- 
ent sense ; but there can be only one 
juit interpretation, and that is fixed 
unalterably by the apparent meaning 
of its authors at the time. On this 
ground alone, therefore, I respectfully 
contend that the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence has no claim whatever to be 
considered in the controversy of our 



I day. I have stated, at some length, 
my reasons for rejecting its famous 
propositions, as being totally fallacious 
', and untenable. But even if they were 
! ever so '' self-evident," or capable of 
j the most rigid demonstration, the rule 
; of law utterly forbids us to appeal to 
j them in a sense which they were not 
! designed to bear. 

1 In the second place, however, it 
\ should be remembered that the De- 
claration of Independence, whether 
true or false, whether it be interpreted 
legally or illegally, forms no part of 
our present system. As a great his- 
torical document, it stands, and must 
ever stand, prominent before the na- 
tions of the world. But it was put 
forth more than seven years anterior 
to the Constitution. Its language was 
not adopted in that Constitution, and 
it has no place whatever in the obliga- 
tory law of the United States. When 
our orators, our preachers, and our 
politicians, therefore, take its proposi- 
( tions about human rights and human 
equality, and set them up as the su- 
preme law, overruling the Constitu- 
tion and the act? of Congress, which 
are the real law of the land, I can not 
wonder enough at the absurdity of the 
proceeding. And I doubt whether the 
annals of civilized mankind can fur- 
nish a stronger instance of unmitigated 
perversit)'. 

Thirdly, and lastly, I am utterly 
opposed to those popular propositions, 
not only because I hold them to be 
altogether fallacious and untrue, for 
the reasons already given, but further, 
because their tendency is in direct 
contrariety to the precepts of the Gos- 
pel, and the highest interests of the 
individual man. For what is the un- 
avoidable effect of this doctrine of hu- 
man equality ? Is it not to nourish 
the spirit of pride, envy, and conten- 
tion ? To set the servant against the 
master, the poor against the rich, the 
weak against the strong, the ignorant 
against the educated ? To loosen all 
the bonds and relations of society, 
and reduce the whole duty of subor- 
dination to the selfish cupidity of pe- 
cuniary interest, without an atom of 
respect for age, for office, for law, for 
government, for Providence, or for the 
word of God ? 

I do not deny, indeed, that this doc- 
trine of equality is a doctrine of im- 
mense power to urge men forward in 
a constant struggle for advancement. 
Its natural operation is to force the 
vast majority into a ceaseless contest 



11 



with their circumstances, each discon- 
tented with his lot, so long as he sees 
any one else above him, and toiling 
with unceasing effort to rise upon the 
social scale of wealth and importance, 
as fast and as far as he can. There is 
no principle of stronger impulse to 
stimulate ambition in every depart- 
ment. And hence arises its manifold 
influence on the business, the enter- 
prise, the commerce, the manufactures, 
the agriculture, the amusements, the 
fashions and the political strifes of our 
Northern people, making them all rest- 
less, all aspiring, and all determined, 
if possible, to pass their rivals in the 
race of selfish emulation. 

But how does it operate on the order, 
the stability, and the ultimate prosper- 
ity of the nation ? How does it work 
on the steadfast administration of jus- 
tice, the honor and purity of our public 
officers, the quiet subordination of the 
various classes in the community, the 
fidelity and submission of domestics, 
the obedience of children, and the rela- 
tions of family and home ? Above all, 
how does it harmonize with the great 
doctrines of the Bible, that the Al- 
mighty Ruler appoints to every man 
his lot on earth, and commands him 
to be satisfied and thankful for his 
portion — that we must submit our- 
selves to those who have the rule over 
us — that we should obey the laws and 
honor the magistrates — that the pow- 
ers that be are ordained of God, and he 
that resisteth the power shall receive 
condemnation — that we may not covet 
the property of others — that having 
food and raiment, we should be there- 
with content — that we must avoid 
strife, contention and railing accusa- 
tions, and follow peace, charity, and 
good will, remembering that the serv- 
ice of Christ is the only perfect free- 
dom, and that our true happiness de- 
pends not on the measure of our earth- 
ly wealth, on social equality, on honor, 
or on our relative position in the com- 
munity, but on the fulfillment of our 
personal duty according to our lot, in 
reliance on His blessing ? 

I have no more to add, with respect 
to this most popular dogma of human 
equality, and shall therefore dismiss 
it, as fallacious in itself, and only mis- 
chievous in its tendency. As it is the 
stronghold of the ultra-abolitionist, I 
have devoted a large space to its ex- 
amination, and trust that the conclu- 
sion is sufficiently plain. Happily it 
forms no part of our Constitution or 
our laws. It never was intended to 



apply to the question of negro slavery. 
And it never can be so applied with- 
out a total perversion of its historical 
meaning, and an absolute contrariety 
to all the facts of humanity, and the 
clear instruction of the Woid of God. 

The next objection to the Slavery of 
the Southern States, is its presumed 
cruelty, because the refractory slave 
is punished with corporal correction. 
But our Northern law allows the same 
in the case of children and apprentices. 
Such was the established system in the 
army and the navy, until very lately. 
The whipping-post was a fixed institu- 
tion in England and Massachusetts, 
and its discipline was administered 
even to free citizens during the last 
century. Stripes, not exceeding forty, 
were appointed to offenders in Israel 
by divine authority. The Saviour him- 
self used a scourge of small cords when 
he drove the money-changers from the 
temple. Are our modern philanthro- 
pists more merciful than Christ, and 
wiser than the Almighty ? 

But it is said that the poor slaves 
are treated with barbarity, and doubt- 
less it may sometimes be true, just as 
soldiers and sailors, and even wives 
and children, are shamefully abused 
amongst ourselves, in many instances. 
It is evident, however, that the system 
of slavery can not be specially liable 
to reproach on this score, because 
every motive of interest as well as 
moral duty must be opposed to it 
The owner of the horse and the ox 
rarely treats his brutes with severity. 
Why should he? The animals are his 
property, and he knows that they 
must be kindly and carefully used, if 
he would derive advantage from their 
labor. Much more must the master 
of the slave be expected to treat him 
with all fairness and affection, because 
here there are human feelings to be 
influenced, and if the servant be not 
contented and attached, not only will 
he work unwillingly, but he may be 
converted into an enemy and an aven- 
ger. When the master is a Christian, 
the principles of the Gospel, as laid 
down by St. Paul, will operate, of 
course, in favor of the slave. But 
even when these are wanting, the mo- 
tives of interest and prudence remain. 
And hence I can not doubt that the 
examples of barbarity must be exceed- 
ingly few, and ought to be regarded, 
not as the general rule, but as the rare 
exceptions. On the whole, indeed, I 
see no reason to deny the statement of 
our Southern friends, that their slaves 



12 



are the happiest laborers in the world. 
Their wants are all provided for by 
their master. Their families are sure 
of a home and maintenance for life. 
In sickness they are kindly nursed. 
In old age they are affectionately sup- 
ported. They are relieved from all 
anxiety for the future. Their religious 
privileges are generoush' accorded to 
them. Their work is light. Their ho- 
lidays are numerous. And hence the 
strong affection which they usually 
manifest to^'ard their master, and the 
earnest longing which many, who were 
persuaded to become fugitives, have 
been known to express, that they 
might be able to return. 

The third objection is, that slavery 
must be a sin, because it leads to m- 
morality. But where is the evidence 
of this ? I dispute not against the 
probability and even the certainty that 
there are instances of licentiousness 
enough among slaveholders, just as 
there are amongst those who vilify 
them. It would be a difficult, if not 
an impossible task, however, to prove 
that there is more immorality amongst 
the slaves themselves, than exists 
amongst the lower class of freemen. 
In Sabbath-breaking, profane cursing 
and swearing, gambling, drunkenness 
and quarreling — in brutal abuse of 
wives and children, in rowdyism and 
obscenity, in the vilest excesses of 
shameless prostitution — to say noth- 
ing of organized bands of counterfeit- 
ers, thieves and burglars — I doubt 
whether there are not more offenses 
against Christian morality committed 
in the single city of New-York than 
can be found amongst the slave popu- 
lation of all the fifteen States together. 
The fact would rather seem to be that 
the wholesome restraints of slaverv, 
as a general rule, must be, to a great 
extent, an effectual check upon the 
worst kinds of immorality. And there- 
fore this charge, so often brought 
against it, stands entirely unsupport- 
ed either by positive proof or by ra- 
tional probabiiit)^ 

The fourth objection is advanced by 
a multitude of excellent people, Avho 
are shocked at the institution of slav- 
ery, because it involves the principle 
oi property in man. Yet I have never 
been able to understand what it is that 
so disgusts them. No slaveholder pre- 
tends that this property extends any 
farther than the right to the labor of 
the slate. It is obvious to the slightest 
reflection that slavery can not bind the 
intellect or the .soul. These, which 



properly constitute the max, are free, 
in their own nature, from all human 
restraint. But to have a property in 
human labor, under some form, is an 
essential element in all the work of 
civilized society. The toil of one is 
pledged for the service of another in 
every rank of life ; and to the extent 
thus pledged, both parties have a pro- 
perty in each other. The parent es- 
pecially has an established property 
in the labor of his child to the age 
of twenty-one, and has the further 
power of transferring this property to 
another, by articles of apprenticeship. 
But this, it may be said, ends when 
the child is of age. True ; because 
the law presumes him to be then 
fitted for freedom. Suppose, however, 
that he belonged to an inferior race 
which the law did not presume to be 
fitted for freedom at any age, what 
good reason could be assigned against 
the continuance of the property ? Such, 
under the rule of the Scriptures and 
the Constitution of the United States, 
is the case of the negro. God, in his 
wisdom and providence, caused the 
patriarch Noah to predict that he 
should be the servant of servants to 
the posterity of Japhet. And the 
same almighty Ruler, who alone pos- 
sesses the power, has wonderfully 
adapted the race to their condition. 
For every candid observer agrees that 
the negro is happier and better as a 
slave th^n as a free man, and no indi- 
vidual belonging to the Anglo-Saxon 
stock would acknowledge that the in- 
tellect of the negro is equal to his own. 
There have been philosophers and 
phj-siologists who contended that the 
African race were not strictly entitled 
to be called men at all, but were a sort 
of intermediate link between the ba- 
boon and the human being. And this 
notion is still maintained by. some at 
the present day. For mj-self, however, 
I can only say that I repudiate the doc- 
trine with my whole heart. The Scrip- 
tures show me that the negro, like all 
other races, descends from Noah, and 
I hold him to be a man and a brother. 
But though he be my brother^ it does 
not follow that he is my equal. Equali- 
ty can not be found on earth between 
the brothers even in one little family. 
In the same house, one brother usually 
obtains a mastery over the rest, and 
sometimes rules them with a perfect 
despotism. In England, the elder 
brother inherits the estate, and the 
younger brothers take a lower rank, 
by the slavery of circumstances. The 



13 



eldest eon of the royal familj is in doe 
time the king, and his brothCTS forth- 
with become his subjects. Whv shoald 
not the same principle obtain in the 
races of mankind, if the Almighty has 
so willed it? The Anglo-Saxon race 
is king, why shoald not the A&ican 
race be subject and sabject in that 
way for which it is best adapted, and 
in which it may be more safe, vaare 
useful, and more happy than in any 
other which has yet been opoied to it, 
in the annals of the world ? 

I know that there may be exertions, 
now and then, to this intellectiud infe- 
riority of the negro race, though I be- 
lieve it woold be very difficult to find 
one. unless the intermiscure of supe- 
rior blood has operated to change die 
mental constitudon of the individoaL 
For all such cases the master may pro- 
vide by voluntary emancipation, and it 
is notorious that this ^nandpation has 
beoi cheerfully given in thoosands 
upon thousands of instances, in the 
majority of which the gift of lib«ty has 
5uled to benefit the negra and has. on 
the contrary, sunk him &r lower, in his 
social posirloo. But no reflecting man 
can believe that the great mass of the 
slaves, amounting to nearly foor mil- 
lions, are qualifie«l for freedcnn. And 
therefijfre it is incomparably better for 
them to remain under the govnnment 
of their masters, who are likely to pro- 
vide for them so much morebene6ciaUy 
than they could provide for themselves. 

The difference then, between the 
power of the Northern parent and the 
Southern sliveholder, is re-iuced to 



we frcqaenftly fiad pcnn» viwi 
that tlw vIm^ uwoBciit i 
ly settled by the qoestka: '^^Eom 
wtnid y&H, like to he a deue?" 

In answer to this verr puerile inter- 
rogatory, I shoald say that wb^faer 
any omditiMi in life is to be r^arded 
as aloes «ran advantage, depends oi- 
tirely on drcomstances. Sappoge, tor 
example, that the Mayor rf Xew-Tork 
shoald ask one of its merdiant pnnces : 
••How would yoa like to be a police- 
man ^" I donbt whether the qnestioB 
might not be taken iw an insolt, and 
some words of ind^nation Toold pro- 
bably be uttered in rejdy. Bat sap- 
pose that the same questaoo were ad- 
dresse-i to an Irish lalxHr^. with what 
feelings would he receive ii ? Assur- 
edly with those of gratitude and {dea- 
sure. The reason of the di^oiee is 
obvioos, beeaose the empioynent 
which Toald be & d^ndatko to the 
one, offors proraotioa and iageitj to 
the other. In like manna', slaverr. to 
an individual of the An^o-Saxon nee, 
which occupies so high a rank in bo- 
man estimation, would be a debas^nent 
not to be thought <A with patience far 
a moment And yet to the Guinea 
negro, sunk in heathen barbarism, it 
would be a haj^y change to place him 
in the hands of a Soathsn master. 
Etoi now, althovgfa the slaves have do 
idea of the pagan abMrnnatioDS from 
which thdr Ibr^thers were takoi, it 
is notorioos that they osoally Taloe 
their privileges as being &r superior to 
the etrnditioo of the free n^roes annrnd 
than, and prder the certainty of protec- 
tion and snpport fsx life to the hazards 



this, namely, that the master has 

property in the lifx>r o/hU ilate for ; of the hberty on which the abolitioaist 
li/f. instead of having it only to the age ■ advises ihem to venture. How much 
of twenty -one, l"?cause the law regards 



the negro as beir.e always a child in un 
derstanding, re-quiring a snp«ior mind 
to govam and direct him. But, on the 
other hand, the slave has just as really 
% property ftr U/e in kit master t tup- 
port and preUetiifn, and this property 
is secured to him by the same law. in 
sickness and in health, in the helpless- 
ness of old age, as well as in the days 
of youthful vigor, incladin?. besides, a 
comfortable maintenance for his wife 
and family. Can any rational ja<%- 
ment devise a &irer equivalent ? 

The fifth objection, which often 
meets the yorthem ear. proceeds from 
the overweening value attache-i in our 
age and country, to the name of hb«ty. 
since it is common to call it the dearest 
right of man, and to esteem its loss as 



more would they prize their presoii 
lot if they understood that, were it not 
for this very instiiuti<m of ^very, they 
would be existing in the darkest idola- 
try and licentiousness among the sav- 
ages of Africa, under the despocc King 
of Dahomey, destitute of every secu- 
rity for earthly comfort, and deprived 
of all religioas hope for the world to 
come! 

If men would reflect matordj on 
the subject, they would soon be ooa- 
rinced that liberty is a Uessing to 
those, and only those, who are «bU t» 
VM it wimlif. There are thousands in 
our land, free aceotuing to law, but so 
enslaved to vice and the misery conse- 
quent on vice, that it would be a mer- 
cy to place them, supposing it were 
possible, under the rule of scune other 



the greatest possible calamity. Hence \ will, stronger and b^to' than their 



14 



own. As it is, they arc in bondage to 
Satan, notwithstanding their imaginary 
freedom ; and they do his bidding, not 
merely in the work of the body, but in 
the far worse slavery of the soul. 
Strictly speaking, however, the freest 
man on earth has no ahsobite liberty , 
for this belongs alone to God, and is 
not given to any creature. And hence 
it is the glory of the Christian to be 
the bond servant of the divine Redeem- 
er who " bought us to himself with his 
own precious blood." The service of 
Christ, as saith the Apostle, is " the 
ov)\y perfect freedom." All who refuse 
that service, are slaves of necessity to 
other masters ; slaves to Mammon ; 
slaves to ambition ; slaves to lust ; 
slaves to intemperance ; slaves to a 
thousand forms of anxious care and 
perplexity ; .slaves at best to pride and 
worldly decorum, and slaves to circum- 
stances over which they have no con- 
trol. And they are compelled to labor 
without ceasing under some or all of 
these despotic rulers, at the secret will 
of that spiritual task-master, whose 
bondage does not end at death, but 
continues to eternity. 

The sixth objection arises from the 
fact that slavery separates the husband 
from the wife and the parents from the 
children. Undoubtedly it sometimes 
does so, from necessity. Before we 
adopt this fact, however, as an argu- 
ment against slavery, it is only fair to 
inquire whether the same separation 
do not take place, perhaps quite as fre- 
quently, amongst those who call them- 
selves free. The laboring man who has 
a large family is always obliged to 
separate from his children, because it 
is impo.ssible to support them in his 
humble home. They are sent to ser- 
vice, therefore, one to this master and 
another to that, or bound as appren- 
tices, as the case may be, and thus 
the domestic relations are superseded 
by strangers, for the most part beyond 
recovery. So among the lower orders, 
the husbands are separated from their 
' wives by the same necessity. IIow 
many, even of the better classes, have 
left their homes to seek their fortune in 
the gold regions ! IIow many in Europe 
have abandoned their families for Aus- 
tralia, or the United States, or the Cana- 
das ! How many desert them from 
pure wickedness — a crime which can 
hardly happen under the Soutliern sys- 
tem ! But above all, how constantly 
does this separation take place amongst 
our soldiers and sailors, .so that neither 
war nor foreign commerce could be car- 



[ ried on at all without it ! All these 
are borne hy freemen, under the slave- 
ry of circumstances. Is it wise to de- 
claim against this necessity in one 
form, when we are forced to submit to 
it in so many other kinds of the same 
infliction ? 

There is only one other argument 
which occurs to me, requiring notice, 
and that is based upon the erroneous 
notion that the laws of God, under the 
Mosaic di.spensation, allowed polygamy 
as well as slavery ; and, therefore, it is 
inferred that the" legislation of the Old 
Testament is of no authority upon the 
subject, but as the Gospel did away 
the first, so also it Bhould do away the 
other. 

The facts here are misunderstood, 
and the inference is without any real 
foundation. Let us look at the matter 
as it is explained by the Saviour him- 
self. " The Pharisees came to him, 
tempting him, and saying unto him : Is 
it lawful for a man to put away his 
wife for every cause ? And he an- 
swered and said unto them : Have ye 
not read that he which made them at 
the beginning made them male and fe- 
male ; and said, for this cause shall a 
man leave father and mother and shall 
cleave to his wife, and they twain shall 
be one flesh? Wherefore they are no 
more twain, but one flesh. What, 
therefore, God hath joined together let 
no man put asunder. They say unto 
him: Why did Moses then command 
to give a writing of divorcement, and 
put her away ? He saith unto them : 
Moses, because of the hardness of your 
hearts, suffered you to put away your 
wives, but from the beginning it was 
not so. And I say anto you, AVhoso- 
ever shall put away his wife, except it 
be for fornication, and shall marry an- 
other, committeth adultery, and whoso 
marrieth her that is put away, doth 
commit adultery." (Matt 19 : 3-9.) 

Now, here our Lord plainly lays 
down the original law of marriage, re- 
ferring expressly to Adam and Eve, 
one man and one woman, declared to 
be one flesh, and adding the command. 
What God hath joined together let no 
man put asunder. But it is evident 
that polygamy must, of necessity, in- 
terfere with this divine union. The 
twain CAVi no longer be one flesh, when 
another wife is brought between them, 
because the new wife must deprive the 
former one of her exclusive rights and 
privileges, and the husband destroys 
the very unity which God designed in 
joining them together. The doctrine 



15 



of our Saviour, therefore, restores the 
law of marriage to its original sanctity, 
•and the apostles, accordingly, always 
speak of the wife in the singular num- 
ber, in no instance appearing to con- 
template the possibility of the Christ- 
ian having more wives than one, while, 
in the case of a bishop, St. Paul speci- 
fies it as an essential condition that 
he shall be "the husband of one wife." 
(1 Tim. 3 : 2.) 

But how had the chosen people been 
allowed for so many centuries to prac- 
tice polygamy, and divorce their wives 
for the slightest cause ? Our Lord ex- 
plains it by saying that Moses suffered 
them to put away their wives "because 
of the hardness of their hearts." The 
special questions addressed to him by 
the Pharisees, did not, indeed, refer to 
polygamy, but only to the liberty of 
divorce, for at that time it should seem 
that the practice of polygamy had well 
nigh ceased in Judea^ and it is cer- 
tainly not countenanced by the Jewish 
laws at this day. The principle, how- 
ever, is precisely the same in the two 
cases. Dissatisfaction with the present 
wife and desire for another, were the 
cause o( action in both ; and when the 
husband did not wish to be burdened 
by the murmurs or the support of his 
old companion, he would naturally pre- 
fer to send her away, in order to make 
room for her successor. We see, then, 
how readily this facility of divorce be- 
came the mode in which the Jews of 
that day sought for the gratification of 
their capricious attachments, instead of 
the more expensive and troublesome 
system of polygamy. And hence our 
Lord applied the remedy, where it was 
specially required, by forbidding di- 
vorces unless for the weightiest cause, 
such as adultery. Yet this was no 
change in the divine arrangement, 
which had been the same from the be- 
ginning. He expressly declares, on 
the contrary, that the latitude assumed 
by the Israelites was an indulgence 
granted hy Moses, on account of " the 
hardness of their hearts." And this 
is a very different thing from an au- 
thoritative decree of the Almighty. 

It is surely therefore manifest, from 
this language of our Saviour, that God 
had never given any direct sanction 
to polygamy. Doubtless, as we must 
infer from many parts of the Old Testa- 
ment, it had become common among 
the Israelites, who, supposing them- 
selves justified by the case of Jacob, 
had probably adopted it in so many 
mstances that Moses did not think it 



safe or prudent to put it down, lest 
worse evils might follow, unless he was 
constrained to do so by the positive 
command of the Almighty. All that 
can be truly stated, therefore, is, that no 
such positive command was given, and 
the Deity left the human law-giver to 
use his own discretion in the matter. 

Such is the aspect of this question, 
according to the statement of our Lord, 
which must be conclusive to every 
Christian. And hence we may per- 
ceive, at once, that the case is in no 
respect parallel to that of slavery. For 
here the Almighty caused his favored 
servant Noah to predict that the pos- 
terity of Ham should be the servants 
of servants, under the descendants of 
Shem and Japhet. He recognized the 
bondman and the bondmaid in the ten 
commandments. He laid down the 
positive law to Israel that they should 
buy the children of the heathen that 
were round about them, and of the 
strangers who dwelt in their land, to 
serve them and their families forever. 
The Saviour, when he appeared, made 
no allusion to the subject, but plainly 
declared that he had not come to de- 
stroy the law. The first church of be- 
lievers in Jerusalem were all " zealous" 
for the law. And St. Paul preached 
obedience to the slaves among the Gen- 
tile churches, and sent a converted 
slave back to his Christian master. 

Where, then, is the resemblance be- 
tween these cases ? In the matter of 
divorce and polygamy, the Deity is 
silent, leaving them to the discretion 
of Moses, until the Messiah should 
come. But in regard to the slavery 
of Ham's posterity, he issues his com- 
mands distinctly. And the Saviour 
disclaims the intention to repeal the 
laws of his heavenly Father, while he 
asserts the original design of marriage, 
and his inspired Apostle gives express 
sanction to slavery, and speaks of tho 
one husband and the one wife, in di- 
rect accordance with the word of his 
divine Master. Here, therefore, it is 
plain that the cases are altogether un<-" 
like, and present a contrast, rather 
than a comparison. 

We know that the doctrine of the 
primitive church was in harmony with 
this, for polygamy was never permit- 
ted, nor divorces for trifling causes, 
while slavery was allowed, as being 
perfectly lawful, so long as the slave 
was treated with justice and kindnes.s. 
The ancient canons sometimes advert 
to the mode in which slaves might be 
corrected. Bishops and clergy held 



lt> 



slaves. In later times, bondmen and 
bondmaids were in the service of con- 
vents and monasteries. And no scru- 
ple was entertained upon the subject 
until the close of the last century, when 
the new light burst forth which now 
dazzles the eyes of so many worthy 
people, and bhnds them not only to 
the plain statements of Scriptures, but 
to the interests of national unity and 
peace. 

Thus, then, I have examined the 
various topics embraced in your inqui- 
ry, and the conclusion which I have 
been compelled to adopt must be suffi 
ciently manifest The slavery of the 
negro race, as maintained in the South- 
em States, appears to me fully author- 
ized both in the Old and the Xew Tes- 
tament, which, as the written Word of 
God, afford the only infallible standard 
of moral rights and obligations. That 
rer}- slavery, in my humble judgment, 
has raised the negro incomparably 
higher in the scale of humanity, and 
seems, in fact, to be the only instru- 
mentality through which the heathen 
posterity of Ham have been raised at 
all. Out of that slavery has arisen 
the interesting colony of Liberia, plant- 
ed by slaveholders, to be a place of re- 
fuge for their emancipated bondmen, 
and destined, as I hope, to be a rich 
benefit, in its future growth and in- 
fluence, to Afirica and to the world I 
do not forget, and I trust that I do not 
undervalue, the missionary work of 
England and our own land, in that be- 
nighted continent But I believe that 
the number of negroes Christianized 
and civilized at the South, through the 
system of slavery, exceeds the product 
of those missionary labors, in a pro- 
portion of thousands to one. And 
thus the wisdom and goodness of God 
are vindicated in the sanction which his 
word has given, and the sentence origi- 
nally pronounced on Canaan as a ctu-se 
has been converted into a blessing. 

I have now gone over the whole 
ground covered by your kind appUca- 
tion, and would only here repeat that 
on the question of slavery, which lies 
at the root of all our present difficul- 
ties, I have obeyed the rule of conscience 
and of duty, in opposition to my habits, 
my prejudices, and my sympathies, all 
of which would tend strongly to the 
other side. I need hardly say that I 
am no politician. More than forty 
years have elapsed since I ceased even 
to attend the polls. But as a Christian, 
I am bound to accept the doctrine of 
the apostles for my guide. And as a 



citizen, I am bound to sustain the Con- 
stitution of the United States, and de- 
fend those principles of law, and order, 
and friendly comity, which every State 
should faithfully regard in its relations 
to the rest Nor is this the first time 
that I have expressed my opinions. In 
a lecture at Buffalo, published in 1850, 
and again in a volume entitled Tlie 
American Citizen, printed by Pudney 
& Russell, in 1857, I set forth the same 
views on the subject of slavery ; add- 
ing, however, a plan for its gradual abo- 
lition, whenever the South should con- 
sent, and the whole strength of the 
Government could aid in its accomplish- 
ment Sooner or later, I believe that 
some measure of that character must 
be adopted. But it belongs to the 
slave States themselves to take the lead 
in such a movement And meanwhile, 
their legal rights and their natural feel- 
ings must be respected, if we would 
hope for unity and peace. 

In conclusion, I would only say, that 
I am perfectly aware how distasteful 
my sentiments must be, on this very 
serious question, to the great majority 
of my respected fellow-citizens, in the 
region where divine Providence has 
cast my lot. It would assuredly be far 
more agreeable if I could conscientious- 
ly conform to the opinions of my 
friends, to whose ability, sincerity, 
and zeal I am ready to give all just 
commendation. But it would be mere 
moral cowardice in me to suppress 
what I beheve to be the truth, for 
the sake of popularity. It can not be 
long before I shall stand at the tribunal 
of that Almighty and unerring Judge, 
who has given us the inspired Scrip- 
tures to be our supreme directory in 
every moral and religious duty. My 
gray hairs admonish me that I may 
soon be called to give an account of 
my stewai'dship. And I have no fear 
of the sentence which He will pro- 
nounce upon an honest though humble 
effort to sustain the authority of His 
Word, in just alliance with the Con- 
stitution, the peace, and the public 
welfare of my country. 

"With the fervent prayer that the 
Spirit of Wisdom, unity, and fraternal 
kindness may guide our National Con- 
gress, the Legislatures of the several 
States, and the sovereign will of our 
whole people, to a happy accommoda- 
tion of every existing difficulty, 

I remain, with great regard. 
Your faithful servant in Christy 
JoHx H. Hopkins, 
Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont 



